State vs Rajiv Sahni and Others

S.K. Gupta, J.—This appeal is directed against order dated 26th August, 2003 propounded by learned Sessions Judge, Rajouri, by virtue

of which, he has acquitted Rajiv Sahni, Rakesh Sahni and Raju of the offence under Sections 307, 332, 333, 353/34 RPC With which they faced

the trial.

The accused were charge-sheeted for the offence under Sections 307, 332, 333, 353/34 RPC by the Trial Court vide its order dated 29-04-

1998 on the allegations that the accused Shatti accompanied by other confederates namely, Rakesh Sahni and Raju, drove his vehicle No. 9721-

JK-02D towards. Idgah when intercepted by Mohd. Fazal, Traffic Constable, posted on duty; as the accused attempted to violate the traffic

restrictions. The accused left the place grumbling and threatening the complainant to come back again and teach him lesson. After some time, the

accused came along with other co-accused in the vehicle and animated with a criminal intention, drove it towards Mohd. Fazal in order to run over

him, by the vehicle. Fazal Mohd,, complainant, however, when attempted to save himself, was hit by the vehicle, fell on the ground and received

injuries on his nose. In sustenance of the charge, the prosecution assembled the testimony of Mohd. Fazal, complainant, Mohd. Zakar, Mohd.

Shabir and Dr. Vijay Gupta, as witnesses. The Trial Court, after estimation, appreciation and assessment of the evidence adduced by the

prosecution, found that the evidence is neither credible nor trustworthy, for having suffered from material contradictions, glaring discrepancies on

vital points and, thus, rendered untrustworthy and unbelievable. The Court further found that no evidence, documentary or oral, was produced by

the prosecution to prove that complainant, Mohd. Fazal, was detailed on traffic duty on the alleged day of occurrence at Idgah. No independent

witness was examined by the prosecution, though readily available on spot. The incident is stated to have taken place after the Id prayer was over

and people had started coming out of the Idgah.

None was examined from the locality to corroborate the evidence provided by the complainant with regard to the alleged occurrence. It was also

in the evidence of complainant that the accused attacked on the CRPF personnel, who were on duty with him on spot, but made a contradictory

statement in the Court that CRPF personnel, who were present there on duty, caught hold of the accused and whereas other two confederates

accompanying him did not participate in the commission of the offence. Neither CRPF personnel, who are stated to have caught hold of the

accused, nor the Constable, whose wireless set was stated to have broken by the accused after the commission of the offence, were examined.

Whereas, according to PW Mohd. Zakar, complainant put both the hands towards the front of the vehicle and the accused with intention to kill

him, drove the vehicle towards him. He was hit and dragged for a distance of 4/5 feet. If the statement of this witness is to be believed, then the

complainant should have received multiple severe injuries on his body. Whereas the medical evidence indicated injuries on the nose and abrasions

over dorsum of left hand, tenderness over chest. The evidence provided by the prosecution, when taken in its cumulative, manifestly appears to be

much fragile and fractured to prove the guilt of the accused beyond any pale of doubt.

It is well settled proposition of law that link after link must be forged so frimmly in the credible testimony of the witnesses, adduced by the

prosecution, that it manacles the accused inescapably for the commission of the crime, sufficient to record his conviction. In order to prove offence

under Sections 307, 332, 333, 353/34 RPC, it was incumbent upon the prosecution to prove that when the alleged occurrence took place, the

complainant was discharging his lawful duties and the accused by driving the vehicle towards the complainant and hit him, as a result of which, the

complainant sustained injuries and the accused thereby prevented and deterred the public servant from the discharge of his duty. Neither any

documentary or oral evidence has been placed on record by the prosecution to prove these essential ingredients of the offence, so as to bring a

nexus between the accused and the commission of offence. The Trial Court has rightly reached a conclusion after scanning the evidence on record

that the evidence is qualitatively insufficient to sustain the charge against the accused. I do not find any infirmity, legal or factual, in the order of

acquittal passed by the Trial Court necessitating interference of this Court in appeal.

For what has been stated and discussed above, the inevitable conclusion reached is that the appeal possessing no merit, is hereby dismissed.